Vice President Richard Cheney, parting company with the official Bush Administration position on the test case before the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment, signed onto a brief Friday urging the Justices to strike down the District of Columbia handgun ban without ordering any further proceedings.

The brief — representing the views of a majority of the members of the Senate and of the House — explicitly endorsed the “categorical approach” that the D.C. Circuit Court used in declaring the pistol ban invalid under the Second Amendment.

I think what we're seeing here is a groundswell of the belief that gun bans aren't working. Gun bans were touted as being the best method of reducing crime.

The current thinking seems to be that the facts show that this isn't happening. So, it's time to try something else.

Amazingly, in places where guns are NOT banned, crime seems to be lower. If that's the case, then a reversal of gun bans should do what the ban did not.

The pendulum always swings. It's our turn again.

razorx

02-09-2008, 8:20 PM

Reading the brief, it is interesting on how particular it is about the language of the 2nd Amendment but then states (Page 7):

"The Second Amendment refers to the right to
“keep” arms (such as at home) as well as to “bear”
arms (meaning to carry them). Protected arms include
commonly-kept firearms that one can keep and carry
for lawful purposes, such as ordinary rifles, handguns,
and shotguns, and not crew-served or heavy weapons."

Key words are "Protected", "commonly-kept", "ordinary", and "heavy". I assume these qualifications were necessary for anyone to sign their name to this brief. These words are very dependent on context and are inserted for "reasonableness".

Context of militia or just hunting or self-defense? Full autos would be "ordinary" for militia whereas self-defense, not as much but can't be arbitrarily ruled out. Autos for hunting? Uh, no.

What armament would a modern day well regulated militia have? Cool stuff no doubt :) I suppose, the militia's standard armament could be defined by the government and then only those weapons are allowed for purchase? Well regulated does imply direct oversight by an authority such as the government. Of course, one could argue that a militia is an inherent right of the people which then in that case, "well regulated" can be thrown out as not relevant.

In any case, it appears that the type of firearms allowed are defined by what a militia would be expected to use. Context is not hunting, home defense, or any other purpose. So, the effect on crime rates of gun ownership is irrelevant constitutionally and to the whole gun rights argument. It is unwise to support a right with statistical evidence of any type. This is an argument about principles, not engineered numbers. I digress.

It IS difficult to define boundaries of reasonableness. Should someone be able to own a 50 caliber machine gun within context of "militia"? Probably. This is reasonable to expect of a modern day militia. One could say based on comments of the 2A drafters that the militia should be equivalently equipped as the military as defense against "tyranny". In addition there are other factors as well such as it is reasonable that storage of weapons should be secure, firearm well maintained, operator well trained, owner law abiding, etc., Kind of reminds me of vehicle ownership so...

If we have varying licenses similar to LEO certifications which would allow progressive access to different categories of firearms like transportation licenses for autos, motorcycles, trucks, and airplanes. Categories would be defined by what is reasonable for a modern-day militia to require?

Dreamland. Current society will not accept militia as the context for understanding the gun rights issue nevermind what is actually written as law. So while theoretically appropriate, realistically irrelevant at best and at worst, insisting on militia as context can cause an extreme opposite reaction which can undermine or weaken the overall gun rights position. Best that can be hoped for is focus on inherent right of self protection with the general "soft" principles inherent in use of the term "militia". Similar to a gun rights compromise with support of McCain, given all the other options...

Which is what they did on Page 9: (I love that word "promote" when I do not want to be held to a statement)

"In sum, the Second Amendment guarantees an
individual right to keep and bear arms. Recognition of
that right promotes the well regulated militia
necessary for a free State’s security."

With respect to hunting, this has no positional support whatsoever other than something people like to do and in today's modern era, society does not consider it necessary. Any defense of gun rights based on "hunting" context will slowly but surely be whittled down. (Side comment, if you eat meat, you should be willing to personally, kill the animal that provides it.)

The brief, strictly by the above language, seems to be undermining the strength of the 2nd Amendment, but... factoring in reasonableness and what society is willing to accept, seems to be a good compromise on positioning.

Just streams of thought on this as I figure out my own position and read through all of the other threads. Honestly, have been more interested in religious freedom but when one goes, they all go.

Am considering purchase of a "black" rifle here in CA so am, annoyingly, having to read up on these truths we hold to be self-evident. Never was much of an issue in Texas. Also find the little escape clauses in political positions interesting.